Education System in Finland - Essay Example

Education System in Finland Name Institution Introduction The Finnish education system has been ranked at the top of international assessment program since 2000. The ranking of reading, math and science is within the top six compared to the US where students rank between 17 and 30th position (Tung, 2012). The country has received international attention because of the high learning outcomes and teacher standards (Niemi, 2012). To understand the success of the country’s education system, it is important to understand the history, changes, initiatives, improvement reforms and issues affecting the education system. Background of the Education System The Finnish education system comprises of basic education, upper secondary, and higher education. According to the Ministry of Education and Culture (2015), entry to basic is achieved on completion of 5 years of early childhood education and one year of pre-primary education. Thereafter, children take nine years of basic education at comprehensive school from ages 7 to 16. Upper secondary education could be matriculation education or vocational qualifications for three years. Students that receive vocational qualifications are just as eligible as those that receive general education for higher education. Polytechnics and universities offer higher education. Universities focus on instruction and scientific research whereas polytechnics use a practical approach to applied sciences. Entry to university for bachelor’s degrees and polytechnics for polytechnics bachelor’s degrees lasts three years to four years followed by a two-year master’s degree program at university or polytechnic level (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Adult education is also available to citizens at any education level. Adults can pursue a general education certificate or opt for a vocational qualification, or take up modules that develop their work skills, recreational interests or citizenship status (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2015). History of the Education System Finnish public education can be traced to the 1860s. At the time, the Church created a school system where citizens were taught using native language. The ideal of the Lutheran church was to teach people to read their Bibles in their native language (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). Later on, the Church taught people to read, as literacy became an important criterion for marriage. In 1866, the Finnish government established a national school system that operated independently from the Church. The government established the Supervisory Board of Education to operate under the Education Ministry. The role of the Supervisory Board of Education was to assess, govern and to inspect the Finnish education system (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Changes, Initiatives and Policies on the Education System One change in the education system has been the shift from teaching using native language to teaching using Finnish or Swedish. Initially, the Church taught pupils using native language. Presently, there are bilingual institutions that accommodate Finnish and Swedish languages. The country curriculum and module even provides terminology in both languages. This cultural view has helped improve the intercultural competencies of students and expanded their global appeal (Dervin, Paatela-Nieminen, Kouppala & Riitaoja, 2012). Another change was the establishment of an academic year (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). Initially, the Lutheran Church taught throughout the year. There was no set structure for academic learning. Once an education system was established outside the Church’s control, the Ministry of Education and Culture structured the education system around an academic year. This academic year includes a winter or spring semester from January to May and an autumn semester from August to December (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Another change has been the introduction of compulsory education for pre-primary children in August 2015. Previously, parents did not have to take their children to pre-primary classes in schools or day care centers. However, the Ministry of Education and Culture (2012) introduced compulsory pre-primary education to ensure all children had access to the education opportunity. Municipalities are expected to provide these education services for free for all six-year-old children in Finland. This free service is available in schools or day care centers. The long-term objective of the Ministry of Education and Culture’s policy is to ensure all citizens have equal opportunities and access to high-quality education. The policy emphasizes the principles of quality of education, equity, internationalization and efficiency (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a; Kuusela, 2006). These principles are based on the Constitution that recognizes the citizen’s basic right to education. In addition, the education policy was established on the principles of free education for all citizens and life-long learning. This is because the Ministry of Education and Culture views education as an important contributor to a healthy and competitive society (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). The pillars of the current education policy are continuity and cooperation. Cooperation is encouraged through a tripartite partnership comprising of employer organizations, trade unions, and the government (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). This partnership is an integral part of the policy-making process because different stakeholders have to be consulted in educational reforms. Stakeholders such as teachers and representatives of trade unions need to be consulted and encouraged to participate in policymaking (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Current Education System The current education system is quite competitive. This competitiveness is seen from the early childhood education level to university or polytechnic level. At early childhood education (ECEC) level, municipal governments are responsible for providing these services, ensuring quality education and supervising the administration of public ECEC services (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). Private ECEC services are also provided to parents at a subsidized rate. The Ministry of Education and Culture is committed to providing integrated learning experience through teaching, care and education for children below 6 years regardless of whether the students enroll for private education or public education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Presently, ECEC services are provided by family day care and care centers throughout the country. The National Curriculum Guidelines on ECEC outline the content and teaching strategies for ECEC. The Finnish government also recognizes that local parishes and non-governmental organizations may provide ECEC services. These alternative services are provided at a fee depending on the number of children and the family income. These fees cover less than 20 percent of the day care costs for municipal day care centers (Nuffic, 2015). Pre-primary education is also the responsibility of the municipal government. Presently, municipalities ensure that children have access to free pre-primary education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Almost all students enroll for pre-primary education in schools and day care centers. They are taught using local curriculum that is based on the National Core Curriculum for Pre-primary Education. The national curriculum integrates early childhood education with pre-primary and basic education for the child’s development. Primary education takes nine years and is compulsory for all children. Upper primary education is also compulsory and is provided by vocational institutions and secondary schools. Upper primary level takes three years. Pupils undertake the Lukion päästötodistus at the end of their upper secondary education (Nuffic, 2015). All students undertake the national matriculation examination referred as studentexamen or ylioppilastutkninto. The students are required to complete their exams in four subjects including a compulsory subject in their native language. The three compulsory exams include a non-native language, general studies, mathematics, and a foreign language. The general studies examination includes questions on history, religion, psychology, ethics, social studies, biology, chemistry, geography and physics (Ikonen & Ubani, 2014). Students that complete and pass their matriculation examination receive the Matriculation Examination Certificate (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). This certificate is a requirement for higher education admission. Presently, there are more than fifty vocational upper secondary qualifications and specialist vocational qualifications. Students that pursue and complete their vocational upper secondary education also receive a certificate that aids their admission to higher education level (Nuffic, 2015). In higher education, polytechnics and universities use a variety of selection criteria to select students for different specializations based on negotiated agreements with the Ministry of Education and Culture. A quota system determines the number of students in each specialization. General criteria for eligibility are Matriculation Examination Certificate, equivalent foreign qualification or an upper secondary vocational certificate (Nuffic, 2015). The operation of universities and polytechnics is different in Finland. The state owns universities. In addition, universities place greater emphasis on teaching and research to PhD level. Local and national authorities run polytechnics. These polytechnics provide professional education up to master’s level (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015). Adult education is quite popular based on the participation rate of locals and migrants. The objectives of this education are to ensure a competent workforce and to provide educational opportunities for adults. In addition, the national government supports adult education to improve social cohesion and has adopted measures to ensure the availability of adult education at local level. Adults interested in this education can acquire education or certified training, liberal education, staff development and any other employer-led training (such as labor market training for the unemployed population) (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015a). Education Improvement Reform There have been changes in the degree system of higher education institutions. Prior to 1995, universities and polytechnics issued degrees at master’s, pre-doctorate and Doctor’s degree levels. The master-level degree included content from bachelor level since the country did not provide an independent bachelor degree program. This master’s program lasted five years. In 1995, the Ministry of Education and Culture adopted a new degree system that comprised of bachelor, master, and a pre-doctorate and doctor’s degree levels. New terms for the bachelor and master-level degrees were created to distinguish between the two levels (Nuffic, 2015). The education laws at the time did not make it compulsory for students to have bachelor’s degrees before joining master-degree programs. The law allowed students to pursue a five-year master-level program that incorporated bachelor’s level studies. In 2004, the Ministry of Education and Culture introduced the 794 Education Policy that distinguished bachelor and master-level studies and made it compulsory for students to pursue a bachelor’s degree prior to joining master’s degree for all programs except dentistry and veterinary medicine. In 2005, the degree structure was legally established to allow gradual introduction of a bachelor’s degree program for science and technical programs (such as medicine). This gradual process was expected to end in 2010. The policy enabled the sixteen universities to distinguish between master and bachelor-level programs. In addition, ten universities began offering multidisciplinary degrees while the remaining six universities offered specialist degrees in business and economics, arts and technical sciences such as engineering (Nuffic, 2015). The changes to the degree system therefore had a significant impact on the way residents acquired higher education and training in Finnish polytechnics and universities. Presently, the degree system is characterized by a three-year bachelor’s degree (first-cycle) followed by a two-year graduate level degree (second cycle). Following the graduate program is a four-year doctorate program, which is the highest degree that is awarded by universities. A two-year pre-doctorate degree can be pursued before taking the Doctor’s degree (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). Students that pursue polytechnic degree programs start with an initial Bachelor degree that takes three to four years. This degree program also includes work placement and a final year project. Bachelor’s graduates can pursue their second cycle at university or receive polytechnic grants at one of the 25 polytechnics in the country (Nuffic, 2015). This second degree takes one to two years and concludes with a project or thesis. Another reform was the introduction of standardized assessment systems for upper secondary matriculation examinations and higher education examinations. Upper secondary matriculation results receive a grade of 1 to 7. The lowest numerical grade (1) is Improbatur meaning unsatisfactory while the highest numerical grade (7) is Laudatur meaning outstanding. The grading system for higher education institutions ranges from zero to five where 0 is the failing grade. Grade 5 receives a Kiiteettävä qualification meaning ‘excellent’. Further education reforms introduced a 40-point study load for bachelor’s education program after the bachelor-to-master degree structure was established. A 60-point system was also introduced in 2005 to facilitate the international recognition of the country’s higher education program (Nuffic, 2015). The standardized assessment system formed part of the qualification framework developed by the Ministry of Education and Culture working group. The working group proposed a national qualifications framework that integrated an eight-level structure that is built on the European Qualifications Framework (Tung, 2012). Major Issues that Impact the Education System The massification of higher education has been an issue in Finland. With the introduction of the degree structure, higher education institutions have shifted their focus from research to training (Andreotti, Biesta & Ahenakew, 2015). Traditional university disciplines attached great value to research. Professors at the time were oriented and were considered elite professionals. The current Finnish education system has diversified higher education resulting in a mass character of education where instructors and professors concentrate on training (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). These modern instructors have little in common with the elite university professors with regards to disposition, habitus and orientation (Simola, 2014). The massification of higher education has created social differences in the academic field where teachers and professors struggle for recognition and for a position. For instance, the social space in teacher education has increased because teacher educators are perceived to come from lower socio-cultural backgrounds compared to other academic groups (Simola, 2014). Another reason for this perception is that most professors of education have a farming or labor background compared to other disciplines. More than fifty percent of professors of education in the 1980s were farmers or blue-collar workers. Even today, majority of the professors started their career in teacher training as primary school teachers. As a result, the cultural capital of these professors of education is lower than in the average university professor (Hausstatter & Takala, 2008). The professors have lower likelihood of cumulative cultural heritage compared to professors of social sciences (such as psychology and philosophy) who enjoy higher academic cultural capital. Furthermore, Finnish teacher trainers lack the economic capital to make strong connections with private sector players and often hold lower-paid positions in the public sector (Simola, 2014). This isolation of teacher education and educational sciences is the consequence of massification of higher education studies in Finland. The decentralization of curricular development is another issue affecting the education system. The National Board of Education provides a framework for curriculum development but leaves individual schools and communities to make their own curricula decisions (Kansanen, 2003). Presently, every education institution has its own curriculum with distinctive features. This curriculum development is more common in upper secondary schools that have created program profiles to appeal to good-quality pupils. However, comprehensive schools offering basic education do not follow this trend. This could be because evaluation systems have remained centralized (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012). The Finnish government has maintained a national evaluation system to monitor and control education in schools. The difficulty with a national evaluation system is that it affects the number of opportunities for teachers to perform within the school-developed curriculum. The decentralization of curriculum development also hinders the freedom and role of teachers because the school takes responsibility for teaching. In addition, the development of curriculum in schools is a challenge for comprehensive education teachers because it is a long and gradual process that requires external support from pupils and parents (Kansanen, 2003). Inclusion is the third issue impacting the Finnish education system. In October 2015, the Finnish National Board of Education investigated the inclusion of migrants in the education system. This inclusion has been the government’s way to assist migrants in their integration into society. The inclusion policy gives migrants the opportunity to gain skills and competencies to operate in the Finnish society. However, this inclusion has been a challenge for the country because of opposition from the public (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015b).The inclusion policy does not only address the learning needs of migrants but targets the inclusion needs for children with special needs. The inclusion education policy also supports the learning and development of children with special needs (Takala & Hausstatter, 2012). This is because the Finnish government is committed to providing equal learning opportunities to all children. The government facilitates special needs education by providing special support and intensified support depending on the developmental and learning needs of children with disabilities (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015b). The introduction of a quality assurance system is another reform measure that has affected the Finnish education system. The Finnish government has been committed to providing quality training and education to all individuals. The assessment of education and training quality began in the 1990s when the government decentralized the administration of education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). At the time, the government had abolished the inspection of schools and textbook. Prior to the abolishment of inspections, quality assurance was based on regular inspections and norms. By the late 1990s, the Ministry of Education and Culture had adopted education legislation that promoted self-evaluation of teachers and school principals as well as external evaluations by expert bodies at the national level. Reforms in the evaluation system have focused on information, funding and stakeholder support. Current education legislation gives education providers the freedom to implement their own quality management procedures in schools. The law also obliges teachers and principals to assess their education, decide on the evaluation method and determine the frequency of quality assurance systems (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). The current education system supports quality assurance because it allows education providers to develop an evaluation and development plan. This plan is written into the school curriculum plan and explains the objectives of quality assurance and self-evaluation measures for each school. Each school is expected to assess the outcomes of each subject and provide sample-based assessments for external evaluations by the Ministry of Education and Culture. This evaluation system has had a positive impact by giving schools the autonomy to perform self-evaluations and reduced the government’s need to conduct national assessments to only year six and nine of comprehensive education at primary level. In addition, the government is able to focus on improving structural elements such as the physical learning environment, safety of the learning environment, adequacy of economic resources, leadership and the availability of trained personnel (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). Equality in Education Finland has been committed to balancing the opportunities to education for the poor and the rich. The core objective of the country’s education policy is to provide equal opportunities for education to all residents (Kuusela, 2006). This principle of equality has influenced the education system structure adopted by the Finnish government. Presently, the principle of equality has made the education system quite permeable (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015b). This means that no dead-ends hinder the progression of any child or adult to higher education. The Ministry of Education and Culture (2012) demonstrates its commitment to equal opportunity by focusing on learning instead of testing. This is because national tests for basic education students hinder access to higher education for students that do not obtain the required grade for upper secondary education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2015b). Finland has eliminated the use of national tests at basic education level. Rather, the country requires teachers to assess the students at basic education based on their achievements in each subject with regards to the objectives of the curriculum. Classroom teachers are responsible for the group performance of students between grade1 and grade 6. They teach all of the required subjects and guide their pupils’ personal development. Subject teachers are employed for grades seven to nine and in upper primary (Kansanen, 2003). These teachers have a subject niche and are responsible for assessing each student’s capability in each subject prior to upper secondary entry. Regional equality is important to the country. Finland has implemented educational legislation and policies that allow students from different social backgrounds and language groups to access similar educational opportunities (Niemi, 2012). This focus on regional equality has motivated the government to improve access to tools for quality basic education such as personnel, physical structures and funding (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). Conclusion The Finnish education system has undergone a number of changes since the formation of a structured system in the 1880s. These changes include the introduction of a degree structure, the decentralization of curriculum development, inclusion and massification of higher education. These reforms have been adopted with the collaboration of education providers, pupils and the community. The government’s commitment to equality (regional, social and inclusion) has also improved the quality and accessibility of education to all residents. References Andreotti, V., Biesta, G., & Ahenakew, C. (2015). Between the nation and the globe: Education global mindedness in Finland. Globalization, Societies and Education, 13(2), 246-259. Dervin, F., Paatela-Nieminen, M., Kuoppala, K., & Riitaoja, A. (2012). Multicultural education in Finland: Renewed intercultural competencies to the rescue? International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(3), 1-7. Finnish National Board of Education. (2015a). Education system: Historical overview. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/education_system/historical_overview Finnish National Board of Education. (2015b). Current issues: Inclusion of migrants is a challenge to the education system. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/education_system/historical_overview Finnish National Body of Education. (2014). Quality assurance in general education: Steering instead of control. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/download/148966_Quality_ assurance_in_general_education.pdf Hausstatter, R., & Takala, M. (2008). The core of special teacher education: A comparison of Finland and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 121-134. Ikonen, E., & Ubani, M. (2014). Spiritual sensitivity in the classroom: A teaching experiment in Finnish upper primary secondary religious education. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 19(2), 69-82. Kansanen, P. (2003). Teacher education in Finland: Current models and new developments. Studies on Higher Education, 85-108. Kuusela, J. (2006). Thematic approaches to equality and equity in basic education: Evaluating educational research 6. Finnish National Board of Education – Assessment and Learning Results. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/publications/2008/thematic_approache s_to_equality_and_equity_in_basic_education Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Education and Research 2011-2016: A development plan. Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/2012/ Ministry of Education and Culture. (2015). Education system in Finland. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutusjaerjestelmae/?lang=en Niemi, H. (2012). The societal factors contributing to education and schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds), Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp.19-38). UK: Sense Publishers. Simola, H. (2014). The Finnish education mystery. New York NY: Routledge. Takala, M., & Hausstatter, R. (2012). Effects of history and culture on attitudes towards special education: A comparison of Finland and Norway. International Scholarly Research Network (ISRN) Education, 2012, 107. Tung, S. (2012). How the Finnish school system outshines U.S. education. Stanford Report, January, 1-2. Read More